 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 24, 2008 - 12:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Alex Klein
(Member)
|
Excellent thread, though I fear it has been discussed before (not that I care, but it seems a lot of people here do).
Here's my take:
We're in a completely different period right now than the world where Beethoven and all the other legends lived. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that if Beethoven and others were alive, they'd be involved in film scoring. Arnold Schönberg, one of the most respected composers in the 20th century, had an interest in film scores and tried his hand once (the work has been released numerous times). However, it's funny you mention Musicmad's preference of John Barry over Beethoven, because Barry is aware of who he is in the music world. When he wrote his guitar concerto he preferred the term "Romance For Guitar & Orchestra", because he thought calling it a concerto was too much for him. Therefore, if he knew he was actually put on a higher level than Beethoven, i'm sure he'd either laugh or despise us fans of his music. Let us not forget that the classical pioneers are considered the best by pure technical standards - not emotional response (with exceptions). For instance, Schönberg's music is still highly praised in the music world, but many individuals can't digest his 12-tone system. It's subjective as far as emotional response goes, but for technical achievement, I can only agree that the classical greats are still the greatest.
Needless to say, i'll take Barry or Goldsmith over Beethoven and Mozart any given day, though i'd probably be kicked out of my music studies if I made the statement to one of the instructors.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 24, 2008 - 1:43 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mgh
(Member)
|
I will agree with Alex that if Beethoven or Mozart were alive today (or the 20th Century), they would have scored films.
Concert music, ballet and opera were the popular forms of music in their times and they wrote for them.
Concert music, opera, and film music are different forms. There are superb composers in all of them. None are superior to the others.
Remember Vaughan Williams, Walton, Bennett, Korngold, Alwyn, Arnold, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich wrote for both films and the concert hall and did pretty well at both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both you and Ace are correct, Jake, in that John would seriously wonder what marbles others are missing if they dared compared him to Ludwig Vee.
Our contention is that it isn't about ultra-competition (except among the snarky snobs) but more about APPRECIATION for who and what they are and the musical wonders they've all given the world.
And there ain't anything wrong with that a'tall ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 25, 2008 - 4:08 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MusicMad
(Member)
|
I am amused and surprised by the reference to me in Neotrinity's opening statement ... I had no idea that my expressed views a few weeks ago were so memorable!
I was bemused at the time that such views could elicit such reaction and rather than extend the discussion I decided to let the thread pass into obscurity. Yes, well ...
I can't write with Neo's eloquence (too many business letters carry my text over 30 odd years for me to change my ways) but I thank him for the kind words. He appears to have understood my position where others did not.
At contention appears to be not only whether I have the right to consider John Barry a better composer than his colleagues in the industry but better than any other composer. I expressed views that he appears to have created music under conditions which composers of other generations never faced and such comments were all-but condemned. And then there was the technical side: how could I possibly think John Barry has written music as technically brilliant as the masters? If I ever stated that then I was wandering and out of my depth as my musical knowledge is limited to pressing the on-switch on the amplifier.
However, I do pick up on a couple of comments in this thread.
Alex states When he [John Barry] wrote his guitar concerto [for Deadfall], he preferred the term "Romance For Guitar & Orchestra", because he thought calling it a concerto was too much for him. and I assume that this is taken from the LP's sleeve notes (as copied into the CD booklet notes) but the quote is incorrect. The notes state that "John felt that it would be too pretentious to call his work a Concerto - ..." which changes the infexion somewhat. The piece, although designed to act as a concerto for the film's storyline, is too underdeveloped to carry the name "concerto" whilst "romance" (a la Beethoven's Romance(s) for violin and orchestra) is far more apt - though I have probably raised some people's eyebrows by linking a piece of filmmusic with such artistic classical pieces. Who knows, had the script called for a 30min music sequence perhaps a two or three movement piece would have earned the grander title.
Jake states The one thing we can probably all agree is that John Barry wouldn't dare compare himself to Beethoven. and I'm sure he is right. Indeed, should Mr. Barry ever hear of/read my expressed views he would probably call me a fool (or something similar). What was it Jerry Goldsmith said about his followers seeking to collect all of his works? Something like: they should get a life - others may know the reported words.
Now Thor challenged me over my use of the term "best" as opposed to "favourite" and I recall I left the thread agreeing to disagree with him on that.
But since Neo kindly resurrected the subject matter, if not the thread itself, I'm going to take advantage and express my views again - hopefully a little more co-herently, this time. So now is the time (if you're still reading) to press the back button and switch threads!
It is my view that - for me - John Barry is the best composer of all time. I don't think he is the best composer for all people, perhaps not even for any one other person. Just me.
Now this is not down to fan-worship or anything of that nature. It is down to simple plain reasoning.
There may be numerous reasons why music is written - I can guess at only a handful of those reasons - but I'm totally self-centred here. I don't care why the music is written I simply assess whether I like it, be it classical (of whatever period - romantic is my overall favourite), country, easy-listening, jazz, pop, etc. etc. It just happens that filmmusic grabbed me as a youngster and hasn't let go albeit my tastes have widened somewhat.
So, if any of Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky ... (I have recordings of compositions by these and others) were my "best" composer why isn't my CD library stacked out with their works? Each and all wrote many superb pieces of music and I enjoy some of them immensely but none of those named or any of the others has achieved what John Barry has achieved in my listening experience. Now part of this is because I happen to like hearing music matched with images and those classical composers had a different reason for writing their music to their 20th Century counterparts. But I'm not going to take this into account and say I'll allow Brahms a few extra credits because if he had been writing for the cinema then I would have liked his music more.
No, I'm simply asking myself: who has composed the music I most want to listen to; who has created those tunes which stay with me day after day; who has produced sounds which match images so perfectly that it is almost impossible to watch the images without the music and not think this is wrong, it's incomplete but, at the same time, has created that same music such that without the image it still sounds great (or better); and not just once or twice (as there are numerous talented artists who have achieved this) but done so time after time, film after film; and whose troughs are so much better than many other composers' peaks?
Answer: for me ... and me alone: John Barry.
With this reasoning how can he not be the best composer ... for me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 25, 2008 - 8:33 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Alex Klein
(Member)
|
Alex states When he [John Barry] wrote his guitar concerto [for Deadfall], he preferred the term "Romance For Guitar & Orchestra", because he thought calling it a concerto was too much for him. and I assume that this is taken from the LP's sleeve notes (as copied into the CD booklet notes) but the quote is incorrect. The notes state that "John felt that it would be too pretentious to call his work a Concerto - ..." which changes the infexion somewhat. The piece, although designed to act as a concerto for the film's storyline, is too underdeveloped to carry the name "concerto" whilst "romance" (a la Beethoven's Romance(s) for violin and orchestra) is far more apt - though I have probably raised some people's eyebrows by linking a piece of filmmusic with such artistic classical pieces. Who knows, had the script called for a 30min music sequence perhaps a two or three movement piece would have earned the grander title.
FYI, "romance" can mean anything as far as musical development goes, whether a guitar concerto does have to follow a more strict technical structure. Therefore, calling a musical piece a "romance" is a mere description - not an established musical form.
And if you are aware of his interview on the Deadfall DVD, Barry himself says he never wanted such grand things as composing symphonies or piano concertos - he wanted to write for films - something that offers good proof why he refuses to call his piece a concerto. The term is not appropriate for his goals as a composer.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jake, your ballet analogy is positively inspired, whilst Rozsaphile makes an incredibly pertinent point vis-a-vis what every artist hungers for: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
Not necessary from restraints, exactly (as they come in all shapes and sizes, tangible or un) but we'd unabashedly posit the proposition those composing in the classical arenas DO unmistakably have far more latitude to influence the manner their creativity expresses itself blessedly without the terminally insecure thousand umpteen second, third and eighty-eight thoughts on how to "improve" something part and (usually poisonous) parcel of Hollyweird.
We dearly doubt there's any serious disputation along those lines, and we appreciate the infinite insight behind it ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 25, 2008 - 3:19 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jake
(Member)
|
Granted, most film scores are written under tight deadlines and constant pressure, not to mention the temp-track disease that has spread all over the film scoring world. It has become very hard for composers to come up with fresh approaches. But pressure and other troubles have happened to composers like Ravel and others in the "classical" world: if I'm not mistaken, during rehearsals for DAPHNIS ET CHLOE some dancers had trouble matching their steps to the Master's music causing some bars to be jettisoned before the premiere.
But, unlike a concert work, a film score nowadays is mostly supposed to sit in the background when it's not derivative of other film scores. John Barry's music has always been very proud to stand on its own when it has to shine in the narrative. And his voice, like it or hate it, is unique. So is Maurice Jarre's or Ennio Morricone's.
But sometimes composers are given the latitude to really be artists: Elmer Bernstein had almost a full year to write THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, to the extent he was able to record a temp score based on his original themes but with a smaller orchestra.
Patrick Doyle also had quite a comfortable time frame whilst composing what may be his magnum opus so far: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN. Elliot Goldenthal on FRIDA, Alexandre Desplat ON BIRTH: both composers were working hand in hand with their respective directors to create something fresh and they did, IMHO, of course. There may be other such instances. But usually, and to quote Alfred Newman "producers don't want the music to be good, they want it delivered on Monday". Sad.
... Dunno if this post makes any sense, sorry!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 25, 2008 - 4:01 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
But pressure and other troubles have happened to composers like Ravel and others in the "classical" world
Absolutely right - and composers throughout the ages have had to sing for their supper. They needed to eat and feed their 20 children (I'm talking to you Johann Sebastian) like the rest of us. There was alot of competition for the posts of kapellmeister, court composer etc, and commissioned programmes to follow - fireworks, water music, coronations, birthdays, holy days etc etc et-blooming-cetera.
The only ones who perhaps didn't have that pressure were the hobbyists - people like Ives (insurance man) or Borodin (chemist) who didn't need the money and were therefore more masters of their own compositional destiny.
There's an utterly inarguable parallel with film composers - and comparisons between our favourite ones today and those who plied their trade in the past few centuries are not far-fetched at all. What needs to be understood is that only the very best survive the passage of time, and this will also be the case with the film composers of the 20th century onwards. Original recordings will facilitate this of course, but who's to say that Williams won't be seen as the late 20th century equivalent of Beethoven, or Morricone of Bach? Or Horner of Saverio Mercadante? *
And thanks for bringing up that old thread, Thor - it was a joy to read, especially good old Anonie - whatever people thought of him (and for my part I think very highly indeed) he made you talk about the music.
* http://www.amazon.com/Rossinis-Rivals-Then-Famous-Now-Obscure-Composers/dp/B00079W8RM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 25, 2008 - 5:47 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jake
(Member)
|
What needs to be understood is that only the very best survive the passage of time, and this will also be the case with the film composers of the 20th century onwards. Original recordings will facilitate this of course, but who's to say that Williams won't be seen as the late 20th century equivalent of Beethoven, or Morricone of Bach? Or Horner of Saverio Mercadante? *
Yes. And one could argue that some film scores have already turned out to be bona fide concert hall classics: film works by Walton, Vaughan Williams, Glass, Corigliano, Lenny Bernstein, Copland, Korngold, Honegger... And some of John Williams' STAR WARS music is already a sort of - roughly - undisputed classic.
Yet, some great and original film scores don't make for great concert music, simply because the detailed sound and orchestrations contained in the original recording remain tough to transcribe: most of Morricone's output, Goldsmith's PLANET OF THE APES and ALIEN scores: both landmark scores but unless proved wrong more or less defined by the original soundtrack performance and recording, nearly impossible to replicate in a concert hall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 26, 2008 - 2:08 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MusicMad
(Member)
|
Alex states When he [John Barry] wrote his guitar concerto [for Deadfall], he preferred the term "Romance For Guitar & Orchestra", because he thought calling it a concerto was too much for him. and I assume that this is taken from the LP's sleeve notes (as copied into the CD booklet notes) but the quote is incorrect. The notes state that "John felt that it would be too pretentious to call his work a Concerto - ..." which changes the inflexion somewhat. The piece, although designed to act as a concerto for the film's storyline, is too underdeveloped to carry the name "concerto" whilst "romance" (a la Beethoven's Romance(s) for violin and orchestra) is far more apt - though I have probably raised some people's eyebrows by linking a piece of filmmusic with such artistic classical pieces. Who knows, had the script called for a 30min music sequence perhaps a two or three movement piece would have earned the grander title.
FYI, "romance" can mean anything as far as musical development goes, whether a guitar concerto does have to follow a more strict technical structure. Therefore, calling a musical piece a "romance" is a mere description - not an established musical form.
And if you are aware of his interview on the Deadfall DVD, Barry himself says he never wanted such grand things as composing symphonies or piano concertos - he wanted to write for films - something that offers good proof why he refuses to call his piece a concerto. The term is not appropriate for his goals as a composer.
Alex
Thanks, Alex, I stand corrected re: "Romance". I haven't seen the Deadfall DVD and hence the interview to which you refers awaits me. I am aware that he has always maintained that he set out to be a film score composer and used his early years in the pop business merely as the stepping stone.
I'm not sure I understand your final sentence but I like to think that we hold similar views. I challenged your phrasing of JB's desciption of the "romance" because my reading of your post suggested John Barry did not think he was capable of writing a "concerto". I have no idea whether he could or not but from the sleeve notes the inference is that the piece itself - dictated by the needs of the film - did not justify the name "concerto".
As always, I jump in without knowing all of the facts ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
